Spoilsport: GBR/Coral Sea

A question. I'm looking at Erics gorgeous pics, and see something in the info called subject distance. First I thought it was the distance from the camera to the subject, but the clown triggerfish for instance, has the distance 21 m. Surely it isn't possible to take pictures from that kind of distance? So what is is?

Paul

A question. I'm looking at Erics gorgeous pics, and see something in the info called subject distance. First I thought it was the distance from the camera to the subject, but the clown triggerfish for instance, has the distance 21 m. Surely it isn't possible to take pictures from that kind of distance? So what is is?

 

Paul

It is, in fact, the focus distance. However, I was using a +4 diopter with my 16-35 lens, so those numbers are off. Also, underwater -- it will depend on the optics of the dome port, because we are actually focusing on the virtual image and not the "real" subject.

Can someone with more expertise on virtual images elaborate?

I always point people to this website for some really good articles about underwater optics. It has discussions on diopters and dome ports both. I thought your explanation was good, though. BTW, this number will be off for flat ports, too.

Basically, the subject distance will only be correct if the lens itself is not modified in any way. Once housed and underwater, the focusing of the lens is modified by the port (and in this case the diopter). If you know enough about your rig you could convert this number into the actual distance, but with domes it would be hard and not very interesting.

The dome creates a virtual image. The lens needs the diopter in front of it in order to focus close enough to focus on that virtual image. It depends upon the radius of the dome and the minimal focusing distance of the lens if a diopter is needed. Optical infinity is considered 20 m. That may be why the camera was focused at that distance.

OK

That answers the question well enough for me. As a newbie I have been told to get really close to the subject, and when I saw those distances I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing the whole point.

It certainly would be easier to take pictures of those fast and shy fishes if one could take it from 20 meters away...

Paul

Indeed it is nice. How long did you sit & wait for him to play?

 

Eric I have also been admiring your travel web link. Very well laid out if I may say. I assume you put this together as you were travelling? What software do you use and did you upload en route or when you got back?

 

Reason I ask is that I would like to do this myself (if I get time !)

The first time I saw him he ran away and hid immediately. I went back a few hours later (at night), and he was out., happily feeding.

Yeah -- I hand-code most of the HTML, but I will go into Dreamweaver when I am being lazy. I use Apache (free web server) to preview things on the road, and just hit "upload" when I get home.

The data files are all separate from the header, table of contents, and the side-bar. That way, I don't have to change 20 files if I want to add one more page to the mix.

Eric, thanks for that. I am currently working on a site at the moment. I am using both frontpage 2000 and Dreamweaver V4. I am not HTML conversant so its all done in design mode. The reason I am using both software packages is really to get an idea of how well (or not) both work.

I assume you use the MX version of Dreamweaver? If so is there much improvement on V4? I must admit the Dreamweaver package appears to be far more powerful but Frontpage is more user friendly.

How easy is it to 'upload' in Dreamweaver? Something I have not grasped yet.

BTW my UK server IS Frontpage compliant.

Also good idea about the data files.

Mark

I've got the full Studio MX but I have lost the serial code - I had hoped to be getting along with this before I get back to civilization. Any suggestions as most of the code sites are labarinths and just interested in selling you porn - Mark, don't go there!

I assume you use the MX version of Dreamweaver? If so is there much improvement on V4? I must admit the Dreamweaver package appears to be far more powerful but Frontpage is more user friendly.

 

How easy is it to 'upload' in Dreamweaver?  Something I have not grasped yet.

You have to know the name of your ftp server, and what directory your web page is in. After you set that, you can upload and download individual files at will, or "synchronize" the entire site.

I only use the Dreamweaver package for previewing -- I don't do anything fancy with it, so MX and 4 are effectively the same for me, except that MX is a little better about ftp'ing files to the server (version 4 had some time-out issues).

I have not (in the past) liked Frontpage because it tends to muck with hand-written code. I'm not sure if this has changed in the last few releases, but when I used it a long time ago I was unhappy with it. I'm sure it's very nice, now -- sort of like using Microsoft Word, huh?

My old site was made entirely in Front Page - I found it very easy, and with a bit of imagination it can look quite good. Some nice picture displaying utilities too. 32,000 people visited it in 2 years, probably just to pinch pictures!

In the past I tried Dream Weaver but never really got into it... I hope to change that and supe it up with Flash etc.

I also use Dreamweaver 4 basically just like Eric describes. I switch between WYSIWYG and source views but code everything by hand. I also let it syncronize my site for me.

My old site was made entirely in Front Page - I found it very easy, and with a bit of imagination it can look quite good. Some nice picture displaying utilities too. 32,000 people visited it in 2 years, probably just to pinch pictures!

 

In the past I tried Dream Weaver but never really got into it... I hope to change that and supe it up with Flash etc.

Please don't use Flash. It's used in so many awful and intrusive advertisements that I've uninstalled it on all the machines I use. The uninstallation process is an interesting exercise in itself, in this respect Macromedia is almost as bad as Microsoft. Surfing the web has become a much more pleasant experience after this operation.

Please don't use Flash. It's used in so many awful and intrusive advertisements ...

Sounds like you need to refine your search for 'nudis' in Google. Nudibranch will probably work best, Herb.

Flash, if used with the right intentions is an amazing program. It can really liven up any website (see Ocean.com for example). The only issue with Flash is that so many people get carried away and end up creating a 10MB front page without remembering that a large percentage of users are still on dial-up.